On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:57:14PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> > Some maintainers have already opted to move their GFDL documentation
> > to non-free for sarge, but the vast remainder will need to be dealt
> > with soon after sarge's release to keep us on track for etch.
> I assume you mean that the documentation will need to be dealt with,
> not the maintainers. :)
Er... yes. ;)
> My first thought is that the first part of this (reducing the number
> of archs that get official releases) is a good idea and the criteria
> seem reasonable. But the second part seems unnecessary. We can
> easily take the archs that we don't intend to mirror and put them on a
> different place from ftp.gnu.org; why would they need to be removed
> from it enterely? Also, the first part has a clear statement of which
> archs pass its tests at present; but the second does not that I could
> see.
For clarification, the plan is that those existing ports no longer
distributed via ftp.debian.org will continue to be distributed via some
alternate hostname (and mirrors), in theory scc.debian.org. This
"second part" is actually the plan that's been in the works for quite
some time already, and is the precondition to being able to add amd64 to
ftp.debian.org because of lack of disk space. The ports that are
release candidates for sarge that wouldn't be candidates for etch are
all still (at least today) candidates for scc.debian.org.
The sh and hurd-i386 ports don't currently meet the SCC requirements, as
neither has a running autobuilder or is keeping up with new packages.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer